Want me to back Obama? Give me your best shot.
Submitted by Nick Kelly on June 9, 2008 - 6:56pm.
Barack Obama | democracy | Distortions | Health Care | Hillary Clinton | Iraq war | Racism | Sexism | Unity | Democratic politics
I'm far from convinced, but I do think we should consider a unity ticket.
Elsewhere, I have mentioned that I will be giving Obama a shot at winning me over. However, in spite of the fact that I am a long-time Democrat, this may not be an easy task. This diary is an opening effort to explain why that is so in terms of what I think of as political “fouls” the Obama campaign committed in their effort to win the nomination. It’s an open invitation to Obama supporters to address these if they wish.
First of all, I have a problem understanding Senator Obama’s record of opposition to the war in Iraq, and what it is about that record that makes his supporters so confident that he is so different from Hillary. I realize that Hillary made numerous statements in support of the war during its early stages; but then, in a fashion typical of the “loyal opposition” during war-time, so did many other Democratic Senators; and given that she represents NY, it seems improbable that she would have been amongst the first to oppose it. Regardless, when I realized just how much impact Senator Obama was getting from his speeches contrasting his anti-war bona fides with Hillary’s, it seemed to me that in order to score points and win Democratic votes he had greatly hyped some rather miniscule differences. The record shows that he did ask Condoleeza Rice some polite questions regarding the training of Iraqi troops in January of 2005; but he made no overt criticism of the war in that exchange. Hillary, on the other hand, was highly critical of the war that very same month in her written statement concerning the confirmation of Secretary Rice. To this day, no Obama supporter has ever shown me any evidence that he actually opposed the war or was critical of it in any substantive way whatsoever between his now famous speech as an Illinois state senator in 2002, and another speech he gave in November of 2005 after John Murtha demanded that Bush redeploy our troops. Since I would like to believe that the Democratic nominee for President of the United States would not mislead us on such an important matter, I remain open to the possibility that there is such evidence. Hence, in order to improve my trust in Senator Obama, I would be grateful to anyone who might now share any such evidence.
Second of all, I have a problem with the 48 state strategy, and the Obama campaign proposals to resolve the Michigan and Florida situations. For one thing, those proposals set aside the doctrine of fair representation. Hillary, meanwhile, championed the idea that every vote should be counted, not just every other vote. Clearly, the Obama campaign thinks the particular circumstances involved justified a departure from those democratic fundamentals. Can any Obama supporter set forth the philosophical rationale which determines the Obama bottom line on vote counting? I have no idea what it is, and lacking that, am unable to guess where he may stand on such matters in the future.
Thirdly, I was troubled during the campaign with what I perceived as the Obama campaign playing the race card against the Clintons. Can any Obama supporter point me to a convincing refutation of the article linked in this diary?
Fourthly, I was amazed at the repeated distortions coming from the Obama camp concerning Hillary’s health care plan. I know for a fact that those distortions cost her votes in the Colorado caucuses (for example). So what, if anything, does any Obama supporter wish to say about this now? What do you really think about the two plans, and why should I trust the projections of the Obama plan when his own campaign literature misrepresented Hillary’s plan?
Last and far from least, there is the matter of sexism. Although I have written about what may have been sexism coming from Senator Obama himself, I realize that most of it came from the media; and in that regard, I wonder why the Obama campaign said so little about it. This article, by Susan Greene, an Obama supporter, features my friend Sacha Millstone, an elected Hillary Clinton delegate to the national convention. It deals with the "shattering of Millstone's party loyalty" focusing on the sexism angle. While that is way too simplistic a way to view what has happened here, it is a piece of what has happened. My friend, Sacha, does not view the campaign solely through this lens as Susan says. But I suppose that to make a column work, Susan needed to focus on one theme.
It is very likely, imo, that many other Clinton supporters feel the way Sacha does, and/or the way I do, which is similar. That is why I think it is important to bring these issues into the light. There is still plenty of time for Senator Obama and his supporters to answer these concerns. Perhaps no real fouls were committed. Alternatively, perhaps there were good and solid rationales for some fouls. Or, perhaps Obama supporters can give compelling arguments to the effect that the fouls committed were necessary in order to ensure that an unelectable Hillary did not win the nomination. I will look at any evidence that Obama supporters wish to submit to any such effect. However, in the absence of such, I seriously doubt that there is any way for Senator Obama to win me over to actively support his campaign. More importantly, I suspect the same goes for millions of Clinton supporters who share some if not all of my concerns. In conclusion, I am directing this to my Obama supporting friends here because it is fundamental that change you and I can believe in must be made by a candidate you and I can both believe in before both you and I can reasonably be expected to actively campaign for that candidate.
If you vote for anyone other than who you believe is the best (or, perhaps, the better) candidate based on your own convictions grounded in your own experiences, you are doing yourself and your country a disservice.
that it will be based on my convictions and my conscience. I completely stand behind the comments that I wrote above which you replied to!
Well then I suspect the vast majority of us would write our perferred candidate in.
Can you articulate why we should vote for Obama?
McCain is wrong on many things. I am asking here only about a few things where I have difficulty with Obama. I've also explained that I will have difficulty campaigning for anyone who I feel I cannot trust. So, if Obama supporters want my help campaigning for him, they need to address my concerns. Otherwise, I am very likely to sit this out.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
tonimiami
You have articulated so much of what I am feeling, especially this:
"Second of all, I have a problem with the 48 state strategy, and the Obama campaign proposals to resolve the Michigan and Florida situations. For one thing, those proposals set aside the doctrine of fair representation. Hillary, meanwhile, championed the idea that every vote should be counted, not just every other vote. Clearly, the Obama campaign thinks the particular circumstances involved justified a departure from those democratic fundamentals. Can any Obama supporter set forth the philosophical rationale which determines the Obama bottom line on vote counting? I have no idea what it is, and lacking that, am unable to guess where he may stand on such matters in the future."
For 7 years, Robert Wexler demanded one person, one vote -- until Obama stood to benefit by not counting all of the votes. The hypocrisy has soured many of us Floridians on the whole process, and certainly left us mistrustful of Sen. Obama and his supporters.
For the sake of my country and my party, I remain hopeful that some Obama supporter will answer my questions in a compelling fashion. I know there are many more like us who need the answers to questions such as these.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I'll just address the Sean Wilentz op-ed about the racism issue. My own personal opinion is that people who have declared a preference for one candidate or another in any situation are not necessary the right people to be writing "opinion" pieces in newspapers. This link addresses whether Sean Wilentz, as a Clinton supporter, can make a credible statement as an historian about Obama. You may agree or disagree -- it deals more with his role as an objective historian.
http://civilwarmemory.typepad.com/civil_war_memory/2008/01/is-sean-wilentz.html
I felt at the time, and still feel, that the racism garbage was the fault of both campaigns -- it didn't matter to me how it started -- the leaders of the campaigns, Obama and Clinton needed to stop it and didn't.
We needed to see two leaders step up once the race and sex arguments started. I was disappointed in both Obama and Clinton; they didn't stop it. Truly just my opinion.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
That does not make him wrong.
I am asking what is wrong or incorrect about what he wrote.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
It's General Clark who is asking Clarkies to unify behind Obama. You seem to think it's somehow owed to you that Obama Clarkies, who have returned in response to Wes's request, fight the primary all over again. Speaking only for myself, I won't do it. I'm here to show support for Obama on General Clark's website, not to convince other Clarkies they should or should not back Obama. That's a personal decision that each Clarkie is capable of making for him or herself. And it's between each one of you and General Clark.
who went against Wes's wishes for Clarkies to endorse Hillary, many of us reserve the right to sit back and contemplate his "suggestion." You seem to conveniently forget that fact that you ignored his request and endorsement. As it now stands, until someone proves something to 18 million people, there will be a great many who will be saying, "No thanks, not this time."
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
I then took myself off to support my primary candidate and did not interfere with his website or his message. He now endorses the same candidate and expressly wants those who chose as I did to return to help him in this project. Here I am.
for you to do but not for others. While you were off "supporting" someone else, a lot of us were busting our balls on this site and others for the General and his chosen endorsee. So, now we're all supposed to leave?
Not gonna happen.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
When she found she couldn't support Wes's choice, she stopped posting here.
The primaries are over. Everyone has until Nov 4 to decide what they want to do.
NO one should feel pressured to leave CCN, though I'd ask that incipient McCain supporters not use General Clark's blog to promote McCain.
I doubt if you're going to find too many McCain supporters around here; the big fear is that one way or the other we'll have to get used to hearing those awful words, "President McCain." That, more than anything is the big kahuna that divides the people on this blog. Did the dem party do the right thing? Yes or No. Only time will tell.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
And I don't think anybody should leave. I do think stepping on the General's message should be out of bounds. I do think there is a difference between a primary and a General Election. There is only one nominee and General Clark has endorsed that nominee. I indicated it is each Clarkie's choice whether to support or not support the nominee Wes supports. However, to campaign actively against that endorsed nominee on the General's website is not the decent thing to be doing, in my judgment, and is complicated by the fact that a vetting committee is actively at work and Wes is under consideration for a high position, possibly VP. However, it's an individual decision and not one for me to make for anyone else. What I will not do is take part in some collective pretense that the primary is still going on and there is still some choice to be made between Democratic candidates.
with some type of job description who would be privy to this:
"a vetting committee is actively at work and Wes is under consideration for a high position, possibly VP"
verify it as a statement of fact please?
I have no delusion that anyone here owes me anything. Obama supporters seem to want us to all ride the unity pony. All I am doing is setting forth the reasons I don't yet trust the pony. If you value my help, you should attempt to answer my concerns. If not, you are free to proceed without my help.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
getting any explanations or discussion. The "winners" don't have to explain anything - they rule. They have learned their lessons well from the Chimpy administration. Stall and deny until the news cycle ends and the issue dies. However, I would add one thing to your fine list of questions that a lady just e-mailed from TX. I would like to have someone explain to me why this is acceptable:
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 6:07 PM
Subject: [HillarysVoice] Re: Stop Attacking Hill
"I just returned from the Texas Democratic Convention and I am disgusted by the dishonesty of some of the delegates. They had clamed to be Hillary delegates and campaigned to be delegates for Hillary. Then at the Texas Democratic Convention they SIGNED IN AS OBAMA DELEGATES. They had been elected to vote for Hillary but just like the dishonorable SOB they support, they were and had been Obama people from the beginning. They were laughing at how funny and easy
it had been to deceive Hillary supporters... (Deleted the last part, which was really nasty, out of respect for Wes Clark.)
This lady's attitude is gonna be tough for O to counter. Remember, I didn't say this, since I wasn't there, just passing on an e-mail on a touchy subject. Obviously the lady is thoroughly pissed.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
Unfortunately, deception such as that is part of the rotten caucus process. All of the Hillary supporters I know here in Colorado were very aware of the existence of false-flag delegates within our ranks. We tried our best to keep any of them from winning Hillary spots at the national convention. I hope we succeeded, but it's still possible that a few managed to deceive enough of us to get elected.
As far as I know, no Hillary supporter tried to infiltrate and get elected by the Obama delegates.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
as I have credibly documented below.
Any "endorsement" that was forced and was not freely given of one's own free will does not count very much with me!
That is about like a hostage telling the negotiators to do as their captors want when a gun is being put to their head. What do you expect the hostage to say? What do you expect Hillary to say when a political gun is being put to her head by the media, by the Democratic Party leadership, and by the New York Congressional delegation?
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15707
ANALYSIS: Why I am taking Hillary's "endorsement" of Obama with a grain of salt!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 6, 2008 - 5:04am.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/dean-pelosi-rei.html
Dean, Pelosi, Reid set Friday deadline for superdelegates' choices, move to force end to Clinton bid
"With the final primary concluded barely hours before, top Democratic Party leaders in Washington early this morning ratcheted up the pressure to force all remaining uncommitted superdelegates to make their choice of candidate known by Friday -- and thus end the now hopeless, onetime front-running campaign of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
The joint statement was obviously pre-planned and timed for issue shortly after Clinton refused to concede the presidential nomination victory to Barack Obama, who's gained sufficient delegates to clinch the party's nomination..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25044937/
'Meet the Press' transcript for June 8, 2008
Ron Allen, Lee Cowan, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Kelly O'Donnell, Chuck Todd
MR. TIM RUSSERT: "Andrea Mitchell, on Tuesday the tone was much different, including the introduction of Senator Clinton. Let's watch.
(Videotape)
MR. TERRY McAULIFFE: Are you ready for the next president of the United States of America?
SEN. CLINTON: This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: What happened between Tuesday and Saturday?
MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Charlie Rangel. Pressure from her own biggest supporters. It was Charlie Rangel who first catapulted her into contention for the Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: The Democratic congressman from Harlem.
MS. MITCHELL: The Democratic congressman from Harlem, her biggest supporter, who said, "How can we, as members, deal with this? He is the nominee, you have to accept it." And there was such anger among some of her supporters. They didn't understand her mindset, which was, "I just won South Dakota. I have all of these votes. I have to thank my supporters. I have to pull them along with me." She thought she had time, that she could take a week or longer. She had no intention of giving the speech Saturday until her own Democrats came to her and said, "Enough already. We can't live with this, we have to get off the fence." There was a lot of pressure, and she finally did come to it. And it is a question as to whether people will remember the lack of grace on Tuesday--her own supporters said people don't understand her emotional connection and that she needed time--or the speech on Saturday, which I think was a perfect coming together of everything she needed to do..."
subject here. I truly want to understand why Obama supporters think we should trust him given the issues I have raised for discussion.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
At least no one has said "Go to his web site" which is the ONLY answer I have ever gotten from any Obama supporter.
What will those who go door to door on his behalf say to the "old" middle-class woman like me who answers the bell?
Did Obama Play the Race Card?
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14853#comment-286235
To Those Who Question Obama's "Legislative Accomplishments"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14861#comment-286239
Junkyard Dogs of War
By Richard G. Lugar and Barack Obama December 3, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201509.html
re: A question please about Obama and the DLC
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14823#comment-285499
to cite a few...
We've played Nick's game already. Why would anyone play it again with the full expectation of getting the same treatment? There was no room for discussion on this board.
The primaries are over.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
were not directed to me, they were not posted in response to my diaries, and most of them are not responsive to the issues I raise in this diary.
There is plenty of room for discussion here. Please try to engage in it constructively.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
The problem with this request is you've already heard the counter arguments and believe them to be false. There is no new well of knowledge to draw from, no new source of information to prove your assertions false.
...to quote Mark, above. Judging from your replies so far on this thread I would have to say he read that correctly.
It's not my obligation to engage you constructively or otherwise, Nick. Having done my own homework, I was unable to support Wes's previous mission based on my own very personal and well-considered convictions and the well sourced information that I sought for myself. No one hand-carried it to me.
We're into the GE now. Wes's new mission to defeat McCain and install a Democrat in the WH? I have no problem getting behind. Sorry you're having difficulty with it. I do know how that feels...
cheers
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
But, to his great credit, he did make an effort to answer my questions.
Sorry you don't seem to want my help. I figured some Obama supporters might actually have some compelling answers that they had failed to offer when Hillary was still in the running. Unfortunately, so far, other than Mark, you are all falling flat. That in itself gives me further reason to wonder about supporting Obama.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Tell McCain to step up on G.I. Bill
Robert Lopez served 8 years in our military, fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as a tank commander. He was told he'd get his whole education bill paid for when he got out of the service. Mr. Lopez has fought and sacrificed for our country but like so many others, Mr. Lopez has faced the bleak reality of a government that has turned its back on its veterans.That is why Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel proposed a new GI Bill, which would bring back WWII-style standards of providing vets with full tuition, room and board. And that is why 51 senators have signed on, including 9 Republicans like John Warner, giving this GI Bill tremendous bi-partisan support.
But it isn't enough. Faced with unprecedented filibusters, the only way to ensure Senate passage of the GI Bill is to get 60 cosponsors. So far, John McCain has refused. The same McCain who insists he supports our troops. The same McCain who is voting lockstep with the Bush administration (who have also resisted this bill). We need to get John McCain to do the right thing. We need him to sign now and signal to other Republican leaders that we should be strongly behind our vets.
The original GI Bill transformed American history, providing education for returning soldiers. Not only was this our nation's moral duty for the unbelievable sacrifices of our World War II veterans, it helped create America's middle class and spurred decades of economic growth for our country.
That's why, today, we're launching this new web video with an accompanying petition, urging Senator McCain to step up and be a leader for veterans, by signing onto the GI Bill.
General Wesley K. Clark and Jon Soltz
Obama voted for the bill.
PS
Dennis Kucinch just used General Clark's "Winning Modern Wars" in his Impeachment articles he is reading on the house floor right now.
been done BEFORE the horses left the barn.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
to ask McCain to support it.
However, that does nothing to answer my concerns about Obama.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
You have concerns about Obama. No problem. We should all have concerns about any candidate...they're all politicians. No one should follow anyone slavishly with no regard for common sense.
The fact that must be taken into account IMHO is that elections have consequences. They don't happen in the abstract but in cold hard real life.
Either Barack Obama or John McCain will be elected as the next president in November period.
There will be no 3rd party candidate swooping in from "Ideal Land" to change that fact. Yes there will be voters who will vote for this or that 3rd party candidate either in protest or because they truly believe.
So our choice, like it or not, is McCain or Obama.
McCain is a non-starter as I've no doubt most of us would agree.
Obama is not the perfect candidate (never has been, never will be a perfect candidate...even Wes wasn't perfect). Hillary, had she won would also not have been a perfect candidate.
So here we are...McCain or Obama. Republican doctrine to the nth degree or Democratic ideas and ideals.
We're going to have to choose one or the other even with our doubts and concerns. We either choose or we stay home and let others make the choice for us.
I personally, choose Democratic ideas and ideals and would do so no matter which of the Dem candidates had won the nomination.
What you do is strictly up to you.
I'm not asking for help on who to vote for. With rare exceptions, I vote for Democrats. However, I don't campaign for all of them, or contribute to their campaigns. Only the ones I think I have good reason to trust. This forum is part of a "political action committee". Campaigning and contributing are political actions. I would like to be able to trust Barack Obama. If that turns out to be impossible for me, I hope I trust his running mate. Otherwise, I will not be campaigning for the Democratic ticket or raising money for it this year. Based upon my past behavior, I am likely to vote for the Democratic ticket; but even that is uncertain at this point; and so long as my trust remains broken, it is possible that I will simply abstain. I have done that once before in a Presidential election, and I may do it again.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Rec'd for the clarification of your "mission" -- because I think maybe that wasn't coming across-- that your questions were not to determine WHO to vote for per se, but how much of yourself and your resources (energy, finance, footwork, ideas) you might be willing to whole heartedly spend in the process.
I think your questioning is likely going on all over the nation right now in the minds of millions of voters. In other words, I think it's fairly representative.
Because making this happen will take so much more than the act of punching or touching a candidate's name on a machine on Nov 4th.
would be populated by political activists, not just ordinary voters, and therefore that my intention would be clear to all. Also, the title should be a clue. It doesn't say, "Want me to vote for Obama?"
I know many here are powerful activists, and will understand the need to be cautious before giving your support and activism to a candidate.
Voters need to make informed choices on voting day, and can afford to have some doubts about the candidates they choose. Activists on the other hand need to make informed comments every day, and cannot emotionally afford to have serious doubts about the candidates they actively support. There are two ways to avoid such doubt. One way is via the head in sand route. The other is via seeking the truth whatever it may be. I simply prefer the latter, and am not afraid to ask people questions while making that search.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Nick, I don't think volumes of answers to your questions will ever create the trust in Obama you are seeking. Building trust isn't an intellectual or rational process. Probably the best you can do is watch everything you can on TV and YouTube. You'll develop either a feeling of heightened distrust or overcome your current doubts. But policies and programs won't do it. I mean, I was a firm Clarkie in 2003 before I knew poosquat about his programs and policies.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I think it's not possible to have a clear-headed discussion without tempers flaring again (or more)
Over the course of the next few weeks, months I hope (opps the H word!) there will be something you can find in Obama that you can support. Time will tell.
Until then I'm sure you can find plenty of reasons to actively oppose John McCain.
What has John McCain done for veterans?
forum?
I already know the reasons to support Democrats. I also understand that Obama is smart, exciting to some, and that he has a large fan-base world-wide. Fine. The problem is that I also want to be able to trust him; and until someone can satisfactorily deal with the issues I've raised, I'll be very uneasy about recommending anyone to vote for him or to raise money for him.
I also understand why we ordinarily oppose Republicans, and I am fully aware of McCain's terrible voting record. However, so long as I see my choice as the lesser of two evils, I cannot in conscience campaign for either of them.
So, why not try to be clear-headed, and discuss this?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Just not today.
We can try to be clear-headed but for my own part that means avoiding topics that are likely to start fights while wounds are fresh.
Your concerns are worth answering. And I know you want to move forward but for me, rebuilding some trust and good will in this community takes priority over addressing the issues you've raised.
In the meantime CCN is more than just Presidential politics, right?
What has John McCain done for veterans?
Then please answer my questions. Those are the reasons many here fail to trust Obama. If you have compelling answers to those questions, that will go a long way toward rebuilding trust.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
and the reason(s) to sacrifice them for a "greater good" is/are not compelling enough. To do so would be hypocritical. Some of us will just move on and come back for the General for the real campaign when the time comes. The rest, enjoy it while it lasts. No hard feelings.
The problem with this request is you've already heard the counter arguments and believe them to be false. There is no new well of knowledge to draw from, no new source of information to prove your assertions false.
So I'm 99% sure the is an exercise in futility, guaranteed for failure. I'm not going to spend the time carefully reading every link you have and try to counter every point, either. (Edit: though I ended up clicking through more than I originally intended.) But what the heck, I'll give it a try.
1) Iraq:
Obama has never belonged to the Dennis Kucinich / Micheal More wing of the party and seems to be partial to the Pottery Barn argument of "you break it, you buy it". Even now he often points out "there are bad options and worse options, and we've got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in". Once we invaded, our options were far more limited. I agree that Obama showed little inclination to de-fund the war or force Bush to pull troops out.
According to Obama's web site: "In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations." My guess is you'll think that has more to do with running for president and I tend to agree, but it is between the dates of 2002 and now.
2) Florida and Michigan:
Here is where we've really gone around in circles. You've heard all the arguments and made up you mind; nothing I can say can change that.
I will say this, though. Does anyone seriously think Hillary Clinton was pushing for Florida and Michigan to be counted in full purely out of the kindness of her heart and would have pushed just as hard even if the votes would have helped Obama instead of herself? Of course not. Both sides were playing hard ball.
3) The Race Card
Again, I doubt there is anything you haven't already heard and rejected. I will say that no one ever claimed Bill or Hillary were racist! (Ok, this is the internet. I'm sure somebody said it and I bet you have the link, but not the vast majority of us and certainly not Obama.)
The point was only that it was dismissive to imply that Barack winning the black vote was no big deal because black candidates do that. That hurt. It's like pointing out that Hillary only does well because woman vote for her. Accurate, but dismissive and condescending.
4) Health Care
While I understand and even agree with the long-term problems with Obama's attacks on mandates, I don't see where the "lies" come from. None of the links I followed pointed them out, they just assumed you already agreed they were lies.
Regardless of one's believe in mandates, it is true that unless health coverage is free then a mandate might require someone to buy insurance they don't think they can afford. If that wasn't true, it wouldn't really be a mandate, it would just be free insurance.
Personally, I keep wobbling back and forth on mandates and ultimately think it is a fairly small point in the big scheme of things.
Neither Clinton's nor Obama's health plan was actually universal, either. Lots of spin and distortion on this issue.
5) Sexism
Here we agree, mostly. Obama should have come out forcefully against the sexism in the media against Clinton. Heck, had he done this in New Hampshire, the whole primary season might have ended months ago. But regardless, it clearly is something he should have staked out the high road on.
I also wish Clinton was stronger in defense of the racism directed towards Obama. It sickens me that the primary devolved down to identity politics the way it did. I guess the good news is the two are so similar in policy, there wasn't much else left.
So, I know none of this will convince you of anything and ultimately this is just my take on things. But there you go. That's my best shot taking 15 minutes or so. Hope it helps a little.
----
McCain on Social Security. McCain on kid's health care.
but believe it or not, your post seems to me to be the first honest attempt to offer any relevant response to the matters I've raised here (as well as previously). I'll respond accordingly. Please be patient, though. My wife is insisting we take a walk soon, and I do want to try to read all of the other comments first.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Just to be clear - so far, no one but you has actually risen to attempt to answer my questions. Hence, contrary to what you say, I've never considered any such replies and already rejected them. On the contrary. I have lamented that no one has been willing to even try to answer - until now. So, thanks again.
1) Iraq - Yes, even in his November 2005 speech, Obama was on-board with the "pottery barn" sort of thinking. I have no problem with that - it's a long-time principle that occupying powers have certain obligations - and that if they fail in those - there are often some rather serious consequences both to them as well as to the country they've been occupying. My problem is with Senator Obama's stump speech in which he claimed he was against the war year by year by year and meanwhile there is no evidence whatsoever that that was true for over three of the early years! That, to me, is stunning enough. But put together with the rest of his stump speech in which he claimed that Hillary was for the war all those years (the first three, as well as more recent years) - and I perceive hype. Not just ordinary hype, but really audacious hype. Now that he has been endorsed by Hillary and Wes, I keep hoping that someone will come up with something he did or said between 2002 and November 2005 that will change my impression, but to date, no one has. Thanks for mentioning the more recent antiwar speech in January 2007, but by then, practically all Democrats, including Hillary, were making such.
2) Florida and Michigan
The argument I've heard repeatedly is that since they broke the rules, they should be punished accordingly. That seems fair enough, on the surface . However, I wonder what the underlying philosophy is in this. It seems rather more fascistic than democratic. I realize that's a very charged word, which is why I didn't use it when I requested help with understanding the Obama philosophy on Michigan and Florida. Perhaps there is a better way to express it, and I welcome anyone to do so.
You may be right about what Hillary's position would have been if the tables had been turned. Or, you may be wrong. Personally, I don't think she would have ever pressed the idea that she should be nominated with anything fewer than 2210 votes, and I think she would have agreed that Michigan and Florida had every right to seek to be fully seated via all mechanisms available to them, including the Credentials Committee. I also think she would have agreed to a re-vote on a timely basis. However, I could be wrong. We'll never know for cetain what she might have done. All we do know for certain is that in this instance, she held fast to a democratic philosophy, and he didn't.
3. Race Card
Nope. I've never seen anyone refute (or even attempt to refute) what the Professor says in that article concering how the Obama campaign played the card (not the Clintons, as they alleged) and got the media to echo. What Bill said after the card was played certainly didn't help Hillary, and that is why it is patently absurd for anyone in the media to claim that he said it in an attempt to play the race card.
4. Health care
You are correct that "a mandate might require someone to buy insurance they don't think they can afford." The trouble is, Obama's campaign literature left off important little qualifiers you put in that phrase, and falsely asserted that Hillary's plan would "force you to buy health insurance even if you could not afford it". Hillary's plan would indeed force everyone to buy health insurance, just as Obama's plan forces everyone to buy health insurance for their children 25 years old and younger. However, both mandates are accompanied by promises that such health insurance will be subsidized to the extent that you cannot afford it.
Obama's literature also falsely claims that he will save the average family $2500 per year in health insurance premiums. Since there are no effective cost controls anywhere in his plan, this is pure unvarnished baloney.
And Hillary's plan is indeed universal. Her plan allows anyone to buy into the Federal Employees Health insurance program and offers subsidies to all who qualify for them provied that they elect that way of meeting the mandate. By contrast, Obama's new Federal insurance (not the FEHP - but something "similar") will be available only to those who do not already have health insurance. And he does not concentrate his subsidies the way Hillary does, allowing any and all insurance companies to profit from those subsidies.
5) Sexism and racism
I think we may be in full agreement on this. Neither should be tolerated by any Democrat.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance， corruption and greed， poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Clearly, he's not opposed to war. OK.
He's opposed to dumb wars. Rash wars. Wars based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Evidently, he thinks the US Civil War was not dumb, not rash, based on reason rather than passion, and on principle rather than politics. What do you think about the War Between the States, eve? The British did away with slavery without a war, didn't they?
And what did he mean when he said:
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work
Is that so very different from what Hillary said only 9 days later was her chief reason for voting for the IWR? And do you suppose that helps to verify that he really meant it in 2004 when he said he might have voted for the IWR if he had been in the Senate in 2002?
And what did he mean when he said:
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
Did he mean that war with those countries (rather than Iraq) would have been smart?
It was an interesting speech. I would love to know what he meant.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
and I think it's a great speech.
Bottom line I think he is saying that some things are worth fighting for - and it seems when he uses the term "fight" it encompasses both military wars and strategic legal battles - and some things are not morally justified.
The fight against Saddam Hussein was in his view trumped up for political reasons but not justified.
I see the speech as very close to what Wes Clark was saying.
At the time of the vote I called each of the Senators who had presidential aspirations to ask them to vote "no" because GWB was hellbent on war and when things went badly as they were sure to do Bush would use those Democratic votes politically against the Democrats for shared blame.
On the issue of just war or necessary war...I am to the left of Barack Obama and Wes Clark...I would like to believe that war can be avoided through other means. But I am not so stubborn ideologically that I am certain of this. One can always look back and say that if this and such were done, then war could have been avoided. I don't know if that's realistic or not.
Re the Iraq War I felt at the time that we owed it to our soldiers and to the Iraqi people to not start the horror. Wes's "unintended consequences" of war loomed large.
In my view, in November of 2002, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Wes Clark were all saying very similar things regarding Iraq. Hillary voted for a resolution that both Wes Clark and Barack Obama later said they might have voted for if they had been in the Senate at the same time. After that 2002 speech, Barack Obama went dead silent on opposing the war as far as I can tell until 2005. And I have asked his supporters repeatedly for anything that proves me wrong on that. Still, he has had the nerve (audacity) to portray himself as being against the war year by year by year, while saying that Hillary was for it, both of which are serious misrepresentations of the record. These two misrepresentations were evidently bought lock, stock, and barrel by many Democrats, and they led, imo, to a completely unnecessary division in the Party. Personally, I find it very difficult to trust a Democrat who is willing to advance his candidacy by repeatedly using misrepresentations to such an effect.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I want to be careful not to get into "Hillary bashing" mode, but I do want to point out my problem with Hillary's take on Iraq.
Personally, I never had a problem with the vote itself. I agree with Clark's initial answer the day he entered the 2004 race where he thought out loud about the pros and cons of the vote. I never bought into the Howard Dean argument that the vote was everything.
My problem was the lack of protest once it became obvious that Bush was going to pull out the weapon inspectors and invade Iraq. To my knowledge, not a single person who voted to authorize the attack, including Hillary, called Bush out on violating his pledge to try to avoid war. I've never seen any evidence she opposed the war until it became politically necessary.
All politicians are subject to their own experiences. Hillary's comes from the DLC generation that saw the Vietnam backlash and a successful Gulf War I. Near as I can tell, she considers it extremely important to come off as "tough" in foreign policy. To this day I'm convinced she went along with the war in order to remain politically viable for the presidency.
For Obama, Iraq and Afghanistan represent the core of his political experience with war. There is a saying that we are always fighting the most recent war. In this rare case, we actually have simultaneous examples of a "good" war and a bad one. (No such thing as a good war, just necessary ones, thus the quotes.) I think that experience has shaped his approach to war to be as close to perfect (being defined as what I believe :-) as possible.
----
McCain on Social Security. McCain on kid's health care.
when "...it became obvious that Bush was going to pull out the weapon inspectors and invade Iraq"? Where did Obama the candidate of self-proclaimed good judgment who says he opposed the war year by year by year protest?
And with regard to you never seeing any evidence she opposed the war, there's a telling comparison between her and Obama on the war in January of 2005. Obama questioned Condi politely, but Hillary issued a statement that was harshly critical of Condi and her role in planning and executing the war.
Here's some of what Hillary said, then:
January 26, 2005
Statement of Senator Clinton for the Congressional
Record on Her Vote on the Nomination of
Dr. Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of StateMr. President, the vote on whether to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State is a difficult decision. The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments. From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq. Today, we are reaping the consequences of those decisions with continuing tragic losses of American and Iraqi lives, a full-fledged insurgency in Iraq and a lack of security and stability in many areas. In fact, the National Intelligence Council, the CIA's own think tank, recently stated that Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as the prime international terrorist haven -- a deeply disturbing result of our problematic policies.
In her role as National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice was a member of the team responsible for our flawed Iraq policy. She made several misleading statements about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in the lead up to the war. And in the almost two years since the Iraq invasion, the flawed policies on Iraq have not been corrected. Indeed, Dr. Rice has tremendous difficulty in even admitting error though obvious errors abound. In addition, $18 billion has been appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq, but only a tiny percentage of that money has actually been spent because of the violence in Iraq.
Although I profoundly disagree and deeply regret how this war has been conducted, my concern has less to do with Dr. Rice and more to do with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. The fact is that the President was reelected, and, though I was strongly opposed to his reelection, he was reelected nonetheless. I do not believe, however, that accountability ends with an election. We are all public servants, including the President and his team, and we are all therefore accountable to the public for our achievements and mistakes on a continual basis. We are also accountable to the future and to history.
So while I, and many of my colleagues, have strong concerns about her role in the development of a flawed Iraq policy, an overwhelming majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including a large majority of Committee Democrats, voted in favor of forwarding her nomination to the full Senate. While many of my Democratic colleagues on the Committee, including the Ranking member, share my concern over her role in our Iraq policy, they think it worthwhile to give her a chance in this new role. That judgment, from Senators who had the opportunity to probe and question Dr. Rice on her qualifications, tips the balance in favor of voting for Dr. Rice's nomination to be Secretary of State, in my mind.
http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005126810.html
By contrast, in his January questioning of then soon to be Secretary Rice, Obama ("who had the opportunity to probe and question Dr. Rice") as I recall, made far weaker statements focusing on and questioning the numbers of troops that were needed in Iraq.
The hard fact is that neither Hillary nor Obama really got going against the war until after Congressman John Murtha came out against Bush's failed strategy in November of 2005. Then, once again, both of them made it clear to their supporters that they did not support Bush's war either.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15128
And with regard to your take on Obama's views about war, what was necessary about the war in Afghanistan? And how are we better off today because of it?
I'll look at McCain some day. Not today though.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
the war?
Opposing the conduct of the war is far better than not opposing it, or silently opposing it while being polite to those who were in charge of it. Don't you think?
Also, you can't be serious that criticism of the conduct of the war is necessarily within the belief system that it was a good idea. General Clark (for example) has certainly been critical of the conduct of the war, yet I don't recall him asserting that the war was a good idea.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
But Clinton did support the war early on, basically until she started running for the president as near as I can tell.
Also, you can't be serious that criticism of the conduct of the war is necessarily within the belief system that it was a good idea.
Of course not. But it isn't necessarily outside the belief system, either. Basically, the two have little to do with each other, like X and Y coordinates. Heck, remember when Clark praised how well the war was going before we got to the hard, win the peace portion? Totally separate.
BTW, did you note I tracked down the requested evidence of Obama's consistency on Iraq? It is posted down below.
----
McCain on Social Security. McCain on kid's health care.
Senate Democrats did. That is a long war-time tradition of the loyal opposition.
According to the Chicago Tribune, when Obama was asked his position on the war in 2004, he said it was pretty similar to President Bush's position. Yes, I've seen your new evidence and am very happy you turned it up, and it is helpful, but there are still many questions - including why Obama said that in 2004. Furthermore, you seem to have missed some of what I turned up about Hillary's active opposition to the war. As I pointed out in the "Audacity' diary, it started in November, 2005, one week after Obama spoke out quite eloquently (and I mistakenly thought for the first time since 2002) against the conduct of the war during the amazing month when Jack Murtha opened the floodgates of Democratic Congressional opposition to the war. The point is that they were far closer together in their positions and in the timing of their active national opposition to the war than Obama would have everyone believe. That is further illustrated by their nearly identical voting records on war related matters while both have been in the Senate
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Russ Feingold was among a handful of senators to oppose the Iraq war from the start. If I, a mere citizen knew the whole thing was a sham from the get-go...it's hard to believe Kerry, HRC, Edwards etc...didn't.
It's great that a handful of our Congressional people saw this also. However, Bushco was feeding them frequent doses of carefully doctored baloney, they were all probably ten or more times as busy as you and I, and they were all aware of the long-standing tradition of the loyal opposition supporting the President in times of war. Hence, unlike you, I can and do understand how so many of them came to a different conclusion than you and I did. The important thing now is that they all finally saw the truth. Most of them in roughly the same time frame. And Jack Murtha made it OK for all of them to stop being "loyal".
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Even in Obama's initial speech it is clear he's sympathetic to what Powell called the Pottery Barn Rule: you break it, you buy it. Once the war began, the options and impact available to senators was greatly diminished. So there is a reason they mostly sound alike in the early years.
But at this point it really isn't about Clinton. She is not the nominee and at this point I no longer care one way or the other how she voted or spoke out.
----
McCain on Social Security. McCain on kid's health care.
Of course our reasons to support him are now what matter. My point is that if he is so personally ambitious that he would repeatedly exaggerate Hillary's support for the war in order to win votes (even to the point of splitting the party), where will his personal ambition stop? Take that sort of tactic against a fellow Democrat, together with the anti-democratic treatment of MI and FL that his campaign championed, and I see the makings of an incipient tyrant. A populist tyrant, but a potential tyrant, nonetheless. What worries me isn't that he would succeed in becoming such a tyrant, but rather that, if I am right about him and if he is elected, his attitude and tactics may cause him to fail to deliver on anything of significance. So please continue to help convince me that I am wrong about him. Thanks.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
...would make the 2004 General Election into a Republican Primary, and Kerry's team was circulating materials in New Hampshire calling Clark a Republican.
There are a number of things that the Obama camapaign said about Clinton that I am not comfortable with, and I wasn't comfortable with the tactics used by fellow Dems in 2004 either, but George W. Bush winning reelection was the worst thing possible that could have happened to our world. To be honest Nick I wasn't happy with the way that Hillary jumped all over "bittergate" either. I understand that it helped her campaign to call out Obama for being an elitist, but it reenforced Republican talking points against Liberals by so doing. Politics is not a gentle art. Gentle practioners usually get eliminated.
I mean this sincerely Nick, it's not that I don't think you have some legitimate grievances against Obama, but I honestly think that you are way over reacting. Obama does not have the makings of a tyrant. If anything he is too willing to bend to achieve consensus, which is not a quality associated with any tyrant I have known.
If we can elect Obama President, with a strong Democratic majority in Congress, for the first time since 1976 we will be in position to deliver on many populist promises to America. Bill Clinton did not have strong Democratic majorities behind him.
I obviously trust Obama more than you do Nick, but we have plenty of strong voices in Congress who have fought long and hard in resistance to Bush, who will not go quietly to the back of some Obama driven bus now. People like Barbara Boxer and John Conyers and James Webb and Russ Feingold. Congress was pushed around by the imperial Bush presidency for far too long, they are not going to abdicate the constitutional obligations of the legislative branch of government now just because a Democrat gets elected President.
a Senator.
That all changed when he took the oath of office as POTUS.
I see the same potential in Mr. "We are the change!" I could be wrong, of course, but don't try to tell me that Obama doesn't have the makings. He spent 17 years in a church learning about Black Liberation Theology. His campaign has mostly been about him, and his supposed great judgment. He decided it was OK to go along with the denial of democracy because that would be to his benefit. He has now kicked a fair number of old friends and even a family member under the bus to further his campaign....Furthermore, he is moving to take over the DNC: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_taking_over_democratic_n.php
And in case I'm wrong and you are right, if he wins the Presidency, won't that mean that progressives in the Congress will see him bending to achieve consensus with the right wing? Why is that such a grea idea - particulary if we win enough seats to pass progressive legislation without consensus - even over the strident objections of the right wing?
I agree that we have an unusual opportunity to implement progressive programs starting in 2009. Obviously the best way to do that is for Democrats to win big in the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. What I have difficulty believing is that Barack Obama can lead us to those victories without making a major effort to mend fences with those of us who still have good reasons to be less than pleased with the manner in which he achieved victory in the nomination process. Dislike of John McCain and the Republican Party will be sufficient reason for many to forgive and/or forget. However, that will not be enough for many others. At this point, my guess is that they will number in the millions. If I am correct, you have an enormous job ahead of you, Tom, and I don't envy you the honor. I am happy to see you tackling it, however; and I hope you understand why I am raising these questions and virtually begging for dialog. Even with the endorsements by Hillary and Wes Clark, I see the grassroots of the party as still in the process of suffering a major fracture.
Of course, I may just be overreacting. However, personally I think the Obama team is so far under-reacting to a grave problem - and that his most knowledgeable supporters (including those here) would be well advised to research just what it is that has caused so many to distrust him so much. And then to take steps to restore that lost trust.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
from the Selective Service today. That, in and of itself, would have me vote for Obama. It's a stark reminder of reality, but that's just one reason I support him. I had to cut out the rest of this post, *crickets* and all, because I almost took the bait. Suffice to say I will NEVER vote for a republican. NOT. EVER. On to the general with the General.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
You do realize that Democrats have sent our troops to war, correct?
For the record, I was absolutely certain that LBJ would escalate the Vietnam War quite stupidly, and he did. At this point, based on what I think I understand of Obama's character and attitudes towards war, I have no more reason to trust him than I did LBJ.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
so you have to vote for Obama as the only alternative" because I have some very serious concerns about Obama's foreign policy!
I strongly disagree with Obama's positions on talking to our enemies without preconditions and his being for a firm timetable to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq regardless of the circumstances. Gen. Clark is also against these positions as well which I have documented:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15552
The false debate that both Bush & Obama offer on talking without preconditions!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 20, 2008 - 9:33am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15196
Michael Ware called Obama's 16 month troop withdrawal plan from Iraq "ludicrous"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 5, 2008 - 7:16am.
It is also going to be very hard to defend Obama from these kind of attacks about his lack of experience which I would definitely agree with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HhWwBTGQS8
Obama -- Experience (0:58)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxDLKUeoJm0
Sen. Clinton On Obama And The "Commander In Chief" Test (1:11)
How can I defend Obama from these kind of attack ads with any credibility when I honestly agree with them?
In any debate, one side has to be wrong BUT it is also possible that BOTH sides can be wrong. McCain could want to keep troops in Iraq for too long and Obama could want to pull the troops out too quickly which might BOTH end in a disaster!
If whoever wins the election messes up Iraq, then not much else will matter in my opinion because of how much time, money, and manpower that it will take to fix any mistakes that are made!
Obama has not done anything of any substance to show me that he is ready to be President and it is definitely NOT enough for him to just say that "John McCain is the alternative and is a third Bush term if you do not vote for me" when I honestly think that both of them are wrong and that both of their foreign policies could lead to a disaster. Obama is going to have to do much better than just saying that McCain is wrong as far as I am concerned!
If you do not like either major party candidate, then one can vote for a third party candidate in protest, one can write in someone who they like such as Gen. Clark, or you can just leave the Presidential portion of the ballot blank and only vote for the down ballot candidates. Each person has to be completely free to vote their own conscience!